Item 2C: IGR Committee Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

man voting no. Mr. Heuser indicated he had to leave the meeting. He emphasized the danger the boundary commission was in, and encouraged the members of the CCIGR to contact the Lane County delegation about the importance of opposing the bill, HB 3265. He said the local delegation was willing to work with Eugene in retaining the commission in return for changes being made to the boundary commission and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Mr. Heuser thought he was able to rebut most arguments made against the boundary commission in testimony, but one area that was somewhat problematic was whether the commission was an obstacle to public sentiment. Certain things do not reach the voters that might have otherwise passed, such as district formations. That was an issue of concern for those who cared about representative government as the boundary commission was appointed by the governor rather than elected by the people. He noted that the same problem potentially existed in counties without boundary commis- sions, where such decisions were made by the county board of commissioners. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Heuser said the Board of County Commissioners was officially neutral on the bill, but he could not say that individual commissioners had not contacted legislators. Mr. Pap~ noted the bill was supported by the Special Districts Association. Mr. Heuser said the boundary commission was a State entity and the legislature felt it had an interest in the subject. Mr. Heuser emphasized his belief that it was important to have a neutral setting for the issues the boundary commission heard, rather than having them decided at the County board level. Mr. Heuser noted that the mission statement of the boundary commission actually discouraged the formation of special districts. That was a concern for several members of the local delegation, who wanted to see some changes made in the mission statement. Mr. Pap~ asked how the mission statement could be modified. Mr. Heuser did not know, and said he would find out from boundary commission staff Paula Taylor. Ms. Bettman said cities were intended to be the provider of urban services. Mr. Heuser agreed, but said that some people pointed to the Tualatin Fire District as an example of a successful service district. Ms. Bettman said there had been agreement on the local level to take that approach to service delivery. Mr. Pap~ noted that there was initially opposition to the formation of the district on the part of cities such as Beaverton. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that Mr. Heuser would negotiate changes to the boundary commission law without consulting the committee. Mr. Heuser indicated his current focus was on postponing consideration of the bill. He had argued for a two-year period for local governments to review the workings of the commission. Mr. Heuser left the meeting. SB 0045A Ms. Bettman asked how the bill affected wastewater quality. Mr. Jones said the bill was the Department of Environmental Quality's top legislative priority other than its budget. It would affect water quality by increasing revenues needed for enforcement purposes. Ms. Bettman indicated acceptance of the staff recommendation. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 21, 2005 Page 10